Naw, you lose, again. I never claimed I was blocking posts 24/7. I can
only do it when I'm "on duty" which is a large proportion of the time.
Take a look at moderated today. No posts. Nada. None. Zilch. This
is because the postings have never made it into the moderator's bin,
were deleted from the moderator's bin, or no one posted to the
moderator's bin.

There are two reasons why his post(s) will appear. 1. If they are
OS/2 relevant enough to be of interest, and (2) he should post
during my absence. If it is the latter then the other moderators
would delete any flames or attacks but they too would let through
an OS/2 relevant posting.

Jason doesn't use OS/2 at all. He posts purely out of personal
animosity toward OS/2 users and from a lack of self-confidence
at his lack of ability to actually use OS/2.

Re: Decision on coom and cooa policy on eComStation

The eCS Guy wrote:
> inkleputDEL@ETEisp.com wrote:
>
>> Jason Bowen said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> How easy it is to make the foolish look dumb.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So much for what a doctorate means these days.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigh. There went another one.
>
>
> If doctorates are handed out that easy, I want one.
>
> The eCS Guy

It wasn't easy. Took eight years of hard work. Drives
the naysayers nuts that I now hold a full doctorate.
That's a good thing.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. I deleted them
to prove a point: if they are eCS related spam they will be deleted
before they ever hit the reviewing stand. I deleted them because
I have the power to do so. Why is that so hard to understand?
Read the moderated Charter. It calls for postings strictly related
to IBM's OS/2, not Serenity's eComStation.
> Reason I ask is tied-in with another question: why does anyone use the
> moderated groups anyway? I've seen virtually no commercial spam in any
> of the os2 groups, and the only one chronically infested with non-OS/2
> posts is advocacy.

It started with Jim L. He "plonker" doesn't work even though he
tries to use it at every opportunity and he can't keep his index
finger (aka ego) from clicking on those posts he doesn't want
to read. He was hoping to shift every eCS Luser over to the
moderated newsgroup so it could be used to "ban" me (and
every other non-eCS supporter) from telling the truth about eCS.
Jim is heavily invested in eCS, totally dependent upon Serenity
for his future computing needs, and desperate to con others
into buying eCS to help secure his own investment.

But that isn't happening. eCS has actually lost consumers
and potential customers. Serenity can't hold on to their
own business partners, Parallels the latest loss. This latter
assures the failure of SVISTA and eCS Lusers realize every
day their investment has been totally wasted.
> If you're having to moderate the moderated group so heavily it must a
> spam-magnet compared with the unmoderated groups... I'm not seeing 18
> spam a day in this group!

As an eCS investor, you'll never see posts here from eCS
Lusers as spam. The mere mention of eCS by an eCS
investor is spam.

Re: Decision on coom and cooa policy on eComStation

Richard Steiner wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:04:29 -0400 in comp.os.os2.misc,
> The eCS Guy spake unto us, saying:
>
>
>>Mike Ross wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Reason I ask is tied-in with another question: why does anyone use the
>>>moderated groups anyway? I've seen virtually no commercial spam in any
>>>of the os2 groups, and the only one chronically infested with non-OS/2
>>>posts is advocacy.
>>
>>Wasn't it to ban posts by Dr. Tim Martin?
>
>
> That was part of the reason for its creation (the exclusion of various
> kooks, not just Mr. "Martin").

Let's not mince words, Rich. It was 'revived' specifically to ban
me primarily, Ed and everyone else who is brave about to
speak out against or tell the truth about eComStation.
> You'll notice (if you search in Google) that Tim didn't use his virtual
> "Dr." title until very recently.

There is nothing 'virtual' about it, Rich. Took many years of very
hard work to achieve it. That's something you don't have the
wherewithal or 'smarts' to accomplish yourself. You're obviously
jealous.

Yes, you do except the .moderated. charter specifically states
IBM's OS/2 and not Serenity's eComStation. Jason Bowen has
learned this, even tho' he doesn't use OS/2 at all, he posts to
c.o.o.moderated because he wants others to believe he belongs
in the OS/2 community. To ensure his posts get through the
filtering mechanism, he posts an OS/2 on-topic item. It may be
a redundant item but it is related to IBM's OS/2.

Once posted he has a hissy fit because I didn't delete it.
>>As an eCS investor,
>
>
> you must be confusing me for someone else; I am NOT and never
> have been an eCS investor!

Oh but you are invested. You purchased eCS at the incredible
low low price of $59. Is that not an investment? If, in the future,
the eCS product should ever offer something you deem worthy
of your eCS needs, you'll be forced to buy it from Serenity. Thus,
your eCS computing future is dependent upon eCs.

Now you can publicly claim here that you have no intention of
every 'buying-up' and that this is your one and only investment
purchase in eCS but that's between you and the Moon. eCS
Lusers are known for fudging, lying, twitting and avoiding the
truth and as an eCS investor readers will have little to no credibility
in your public eCS statements, even tho' they and you may be
entirely credible.

You see? That's the price you pay as an investor in eCS.
>>you'll never see posts here from eCS
>>Lusers as spam. The mere mention of eCS by an eCS
>>investor is spam.

Precisely. You see, eCS does not belong here it belongs
in its own realm such as news.ecomstation.nl. eCS Lusers
hope that by posting and reposting in the OS/2 newsgroups
they will be able to overtake the OS/2 newsgroups. We
know that will never happen - not as long as there are real
OS/2 users using OS/2. The only 'viable' possible customer
base Serenity can market to are naive OS/2 users with (1)
a large hatred for IBM (Mark "Dodie" Dodel, Richard Steiner,
Marty Amodeo, Bob "Eager Beaver" Eager, and another
group longer then my arm) and (2) idyits who have been so
brain-washed by "The Boob" into believing Serenity can
somehow wrestle the OS/2 source code away from IBM and
give them an assured eCS future. Like the cache of "WMD"
claimed by that idyit in the White House, it's not gonna happen.

It's like "Lindows" in the Linux newsgroups. Not at all welcome
despite those pathetic Lindows Lusers who insist "Lindows is
Linux". What was it I read the other day from the web site of
the c.o.o.moderated Coordinator? Oh yeah, "Gentoo is a Linux
distribution that I intensely dislike. The system doesn't seem to
be put together very well, the overall aim of the system seems
to be in a bad direction, and any suggestion for change is
attacked by people who have the Amiga Persecution Complex."

Replace Gentoo with eComStation, Linux with OS/2 and
the rest of the sentiment is the same. And let's not forget,
the above quote comes directly from the web site of one
of the c.o.o.moderated group's coordinators. The very
same guy who uses Linux instead of OS/2 and has the
opportunity each day to delete, remove, ignore, pass by
and 'deep six' posts that are obviously eCS spam.

eCS is just a piece of crap being peddled by another
one of those flaky OS/2 con artists we've all come to
know and despise.
>
> Well from what you said above, the mere mention of eCS by anyone,
> investor or not, is considered spam in the mod group.

On my watch it is. The Charter for C.O.O.Moderated clearly
states the newsgroup was established for IBM's OS/2 operating
system. It says absolutely zilch about Serenity's piss-poor eCS
product and that leaves eCS entirely "off-topic".

Any post with eCS spam in it was posted while I was
off-duty by the same guy who says on his own Pro-Linux
site:

"Gentoo is a Linux distribution that I intensely dislike. The system
doesn't seem to be put together very well, the overall aim of the
system seems to be in a bad direction, and any suggestion for
change is attacked by people who have the Amiga Persecution
Complex."

Quite hypocritical but remember, he is a Linux user who is
deciding the fate of the *real* OS/2 IBM user.
>>Well from what you said above, the mere mention of eCS by anyone,
>>investor or not, is considered spam in the mod group.
>
> Not at all. But remember that there is ONE moderator for that
> group...and it isn't the deluded individual you were replying to.

You have no idea who the moderator is. What you know is
that the Master Moderator's List lists the aliases of the only
Moderator and his four "coordinators".

BTW, do you see any posts in c.o.o.moderated today?
Nope. I've been on duty most of the day. :-)

Deny it all you want. Your $59 was an investment in eCS
and the future of the company who sold it to you.
>>If, in the future,
>>the eCS product should ever offer something you deem worthy
>>of your eCS needs, you'll be forced to buy it from Serenity.
>
>
> Of course I'll be forced to buy it from Serenity - it will be the only
> place to go!

That's because your eCS product is proprietary and you can't
turn elsewhere.
>
> I've been called many things in my time, but never a luser.

Accept it. You are an eCS Luser.
>
> The price I paid to purchase eCS was $59. That's gone. Spent. Game
> over.

That's right. The $59 you took out of your wallet went into
the investment of Serenity's eCS.

Now maybe you can understand the difference between
renting and investing.

Of course *it was* an investment. Your continued denial
is useless. No one gives a damn what stocks your wife
manages on Wall Street, not all investments sit in portfolios.
Every reader here knows you plopped down $59 for a
cut rate price on a piece of crap software. That transaction
is an investment.

Here's the bottom line, Mike. You have tried repeatedly
to tout the value of eCS - a financial value that no new
eCS consumer can obtain today. You are here for one
and only one reason: to promote your $59 eCS investment.

That makes you an eCS Investor Salesman and an
individual not wanted much less welcomed in the OS/2
newsgroups. So stop. Run to the eCS newsgroups and
tell "The Boob" you failed to persuade any one that eCS
is a viable product with a future. You are not here to
support or advocate the use OS/2. Your posts have
nothing to do with OS/2.

eCS has its own newsgroup: news.ecomstation.nl
Go there. Wave your $59 purchase there and see
how many other eCS Lusers will yell back "F you!"
knowing full well they had to pay over $300 for the
same pathetic problematic "it don't work" product.

You know why you won't do it? Because you know
damn well that's exactly what the other eCS Lusers
will say and do.

Re: Decision on coom and cooa policy on eComStation

Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A9_The_OS/2_Guy_=A9?=
spake unto us, saying:
>It's like "Lindows" in the Linux newsgroups. Not at all welcome
>despite those pathetic Lindows Lusers who insist "Lindows is
>Linux".

Lindows is (or was) a Linux distro, and it was (and is) a valid topic
in the comp.os.linux.* hierarchy. I read many of those groups as well,
though I've not been as active a participant over the past 4-5 years.

Yeah, you get some folks who slam folks asking about Lindows, but the
Linux newsgroups are as full of trolls as the OS/2 newsgroups are.
>eCS is just a piece of crap being peddled by another
>one of those flaky OS/2 con artists we've all come to
>know and despise.

Hey, it works for me on my hardware, and it runs the software that I
install on it. What more can one ask of an OS?

[FUD4] Re: Decision on coom and cooa policy on eComStation

Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A9_The_OS/2_Guy_=A9?=
spake unto us, saying:
>Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>> That was part of the reason for its creation (the exclusion of various
>> kooks, not just Mr. "Martin").
>
>Let's not mince words, Rich. It was 'revived' specifically to ban
>me primarily, Ed and everyone else who is brave about to speak out
>against or tell the truth about eComStation.

I was talking about the comp.os.os2.moderated group's initial creation,
not the current attempt to revive it.

You're right, though -- the current incarnation was revived because a
few people in the c.o.o.* groups (yourself included) are making life
difficult for people who aren't skilled in newsreader usage and who
want to concentrate on technical issues in these groups.

Comments about eComStation are on-topic in comp.os.os2.ecomstation and
(if about OS/2 topics in general) in various other OS/2 newsgroups, and
comp.os.os2.moderated is now available as well if people want to avoid
the various flamewars that occur in here from time to time.
>> You'll notice (if you search in Google) that Tim didn't use his irtual
>> "Dr." title until very recently.
>
>There is nothing 'virtual' about it, Rich. Took many years of very
>hard work to achieve it.

Okay. What subject? Where and when did you obtain your PhD?

With that information, it should be easy to verify the existence of
your degree, and there really isn't much reason to hide it (I would
think that info would lend some legitimacy to your presence here).
>That's something you don't have the wherewithal or 'smarts' to
>accomplish yourself. You're obviously jealous.

A PhD certainly indicates a certain level of dedication to a subject,
but in my experience it isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence
or ability. I've met plenty of smart or even brilliant folks who have
such a degree, but I've also met a few that I consider somewhat lacking
in the brains and experience department. It depends on the person.

Besides, I'm an applications developer/analyst, and my BSCS (Mankato
State University, 1987 -- feel free to verify) and work experience has
served me fairly well in the positions that I've been interested in
over the past 18 years or so.

A Masters or PhD simply isn't worth it in my line of work, at least if
I want to continue in a technical track (and I plan on doing just that
as long as I can). Someday I might consider an MBA if I find myself
being steered towards a management position, tho.

Can you read? He said my posts won't get through. In the time frame he
claimed to be moderating, I posted and it went through.

>> Me thinks he got sloppy and didn't check when making his claim. LOL.
>
>
> Or maybe you got lucky and missed his shift.
>

LOL, my what a sycophant you are.
>> There are no shifts, the moderation system is set up to email the
>> moderator(s). It does't look at what time it is and say I'll send to
>> this person or that one.
>
>
> We know there are four coordinators according to the Master
> Moderator's List. Sounds like shift work to me.
>

What it sounds like to you is irrelevant. What is really happening is
relevant.
> The eCS Guy

I posted when you claimed to be moderating. Punk.
> Jason doesn't use OS/2 at all. He posts purely out of personal
> animosity toward OS/2 users and from a lack of self-confidence
> at his lack of ability to actually use OS/2.
>

LOL, this reeks of over justification for your behavior. You lack so
much self-confidence that you make up a fake doctorate, and fake
positions and fake supporters.

Sure... tell me about Warp City hosting on their Linux server.... LOL.
Tell me about ipv4 octets with values over 256. Tell me about trying to
claim you were running Warp City on multiple servers when all you were
doing was using .ht files and when I called you on it you screamed about
how I gave away how people secure their servers. Tell me about not
being able to use chmod and exposing your log files which showed that
you were lying about your users. I can grasp plenty, you only grasp
yourself.

Doesn't drive me nuts, you've never once proven your claims. You're
just a liar, plain and simple. You're an anonymous huckster that has no
life and props himself up falsely.

Re: Decision on coom and cooa policy on eComStation

Jason Bowen wrote:
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I win, he claimed he was blocking in the last 24 hours, my post
>>>>> went through.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you missed his shift.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh I'm sure I did. Mine just happened to be one that slipped through.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe. It wasn't off-topic and OS/2 related. Those tend to "slip
>> through".
>>
>
> Can you read? He said my posts won't get through. In the time frame he
> claimed to be moderating, I posted and it went through.

He said your posts won't get through when he is on duty. He gave
no timeframe.
>>> Me thinks he got sloppy and didn't check when making his claim. LOL.
>>
>> Or maybe you got lucky and missed his shift.
>
> LOL, my what a sycophant you are.

Then post his shift and verify it is his shift.
>
>>> There are no shifts, the moderation system is set up to email the
>>> moderator(s). It does't look at what time it is and say I'll send to
>>> this person or that one.
>>
>> We know there are four coordinators according to the Master
>> Moderator's List. Sounds like shift work to me.
>
> What it sounds like to you is irrelevant. What is really happening is
> relevant.

You still haven't identified his moderating shift. Post it.
>
>> Jason doesn't use OS/2 at all. He posts purely out of personal
>> animosity toward OS/2 users and from a lack of self-confidence
>> at his lack of ability to actually use OS/2.
>
> LOL, this reeks of over justification for your behavior. You lack so
> much self-confidence that you make up a fake doctorate, and fake
> positions and fake supporters.

He doesn't know what my shift is. He just knows that if I
am on duty his posts won't go through. It's already happened
about fifteen times. I keep deleting his silly no-nothing
messages.
>>> Jason doesn't use OS/2 at all. He posts purely out of personal
>>> animosity toward OS/2 users and from a lack of self-confidence
>>> at his lack of ability to actually use OS/2.
>>
>>
>> LOL, this reeks of over justification for your behavior. You lack so
>> much self-confidence that you make up a fake doctorate, and fake
>> positions and fake supporters.
>
>
> The only faker here seems to be you. Why don't you use OS/2?
>
> The eCS Guy

Jason spent four very long years at Colorado.edu and was eventually
forced to give it up. No degree, no nothing and his parents had to
pay the bill.

You can understand why he goes berserk when I mention my
own 8 years of college and the end result of a Doctorate.